Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagro High School (3rd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. No valid arguments for deletion have been made, but a ton for cleanup Courcelles 16:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Lagro High School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Being a student of the school itself, I find it a terrible mess this article is. It is full of errors that can only be fixed be WP:ATD-I or WP:TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple46 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 May 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Keep. Secondary schools are assumed to be notable, and this article has reliable sources. I don't see any problems so severe that we have to start totally from scratch. Granted, the article has a vandalism problem from time to time, but that can be fixed with protection, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. However, when you protect a page, only registered users can edit it. There are several non-registered users that do can help it. Looking at the history, you will notice that the most of the vandals are a string of registered editors, so protecting it will only help a bit. Also, this article is infamous in the net for bad opinions, personal attacks and Copyright violations, so WP:TNT or Delete isn't such a bad idea. 121.97.142.148 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just an update, here are some of the errors:
 * "The current principal of the school is Dr. Maria Noemi M. Moncada, after the last principal, Dr. Fernando Javier, was murdered." The principal was already retired when he was murdered; See this Reference


 * "The main reason for this is that the LHS is standing as a sole school in the Northern Metro Manila, Southern Bulacan, and Western Rizal, where most of its students lives." Generally, Tungko National High School, Batasan National High School, Commonwealth High School.


 * "Currently, Lagro High School holds a large population of students (over 7,000 in 2011)." Where did that statistic came from?


 * Article lacks references also, and is quite messy. Delete. Apple46 (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy procedural close as this has been AFDed only last month. AFD is not article cleanup. – H T  D  04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools are presumed notable. This has already been Speedy Kept twice, I note. What's the issue here? Deficiencies in the article are correctable through the normal editing process... Carrite (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, notability is not the problem in the article here.203.215.123.104 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete then Rewrite. The article was speedy kept in the last AfD's because schools are exempted from CSD-A7 and the main problem being addressed in the previous AfD's is the article's notability. But in this AfD, that is no longer the case. The main problem here is the incredibly large number of errors in the article that it's now beyond requiring cleanup. Here are some examples:


 * There are several issues over the article, notably the "SSG is useless" case, which lasted 3 months on the article until presumably the LHS Student Council removed it themselves.


 * Also, the motto is terribly creepy. The first motto reads "ang punungguro ay nanggahasa ng lolo niya, tatay niya at nagbebenta ng ari ng lalaki..." that when translated means: "The principal raped his father, grandfather and sells penis..." The motto lasted over a year, and was later removed by User:Bonadea, and now it reads: "respeto lang parang awa niyo na", translated to "Respect we beg of you". Now it was recently corrected to the accurate translation, please be notified that there is no such thing as an LHS Motto.203.215.123.104 (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. If there are errors or other issues with the article, fix them. An article history riddled with vandalism is not a criterion for deletion. If there are particularly egregious old revisions those can be hidden from view, but the article subject is notable and it's not as if there have never been good revisions of the article. --bonadea contributions talk 05:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I echo the views of Bonadea. AfD is not a substitute for article protection mechanisms, nor is it a place for article cleanup. The problems here are editing problems and vandalism problems — not a notability problem. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No relevant  deletion rationale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Terrible article with near to uncorrectable errors. More errors than accurate infos. Lacks reliable sources, with 6 leading to blogs. It only became a playground for vandals. Nominator herself nominated this for deletion last month. The article creation is apparently a recreation of a deleted page. The article falls on the WP:CSD criterions G4 (recreation of a deleted page) and G7 (author requests deletion). Why hasn't anyone tagged this yet?121.97.142.206 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment No, those rationales are not applicable. G4 is for recreations of pages that were deleted after a consensus to delete in a deletion discussion, which does not apply to this page - the version that was deleted in 2010 was just a redirect, not an article, and there had not been a deletion discussion. G7 is only applicable if there have been no substantial edits by other editors than the original creator, which is not the case here. It would take less time to simply remove the material that's erroneous and unsourced, than to argue for the article's deletion, especially since there is no valid reason to delete it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: 'Poorly written', or words to  that  effect,  is not  a criterion  for deletion. Perhaps voters could familiarise themselves with  policy  before voting here or proposing  for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verified secondary school, which are almost invariably kept. Being poorly written is not a criterion for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.